A Spirited Valentine ...

[Californian Elitist]

Maleficent was a movie that had its own identity rather then being a slavish copy of the original. It was pants-on-head stupid and a complete failure at understanding why Wicked worked, but that's still more then you can say about Beauty and the Beast.

I would rather have an exact re-telling of Sleeping Beauty than have the trash that is Maleficent.

Aren't most remakes retellings of their predecessors anyway? Some stories don't need any changing.

 

[Quinnmac000]

I liked the added backstory. Why else would Belle and Maurice, two very forward thinking people of high intellect and learning, end up in a small minded town full of people with very conformist attitudes and who's high standard is Gaston?

I get how it added but i think a lot more people relate to the smart kid who gets stuck in the small town they can never get out of where the high school jock is king than moving to out of the city.

 

[WildcatDen]

Not going to lie @WDW1974 I thought the same thing. Sorry.

I always assumed late 40's to early 50's. Like someone whose first trip was in 74 and the age of 6 to 10? Now I am beginning to wonder if @WDW1974 simply means Spirit was born in the Magic Kingdom in 1974?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Maleficent was a failure in every department that exists. A truly horrific film that RUINED Disney's most iconic villain. I'm still pressed about this atrocious movie three years later. I have never been so aggravated leaving a film. Ugh. Will never understand why people act like Maleficent was lovely, because it wasn't.

Completely agree. The whole making Maleficent nice schtick just didn't work for me because the character is established in evil. Why is the "Mistress of all Evil" suddenly so caring and nice? I hated it. Her sidekick, the Three Good Fairies, the dragon sequence, Phillip, Aurora, Stefan, the horrible CGI... I hated all of it.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

With some exceptions, when the vast majority of the public thinks "Disney vacation" they think "theme park". Disney has a hard time justifying DVC prices at anywhere except near a theme park.

Hilton Head and Vero Beach are both small timeshares compared to the typical WDW DVC resort. Both opened ahead of nearly all WDW DVC resorts at a time when the Disney brand was at its zenith and DVC options were extremely limited. 20 years later, direct and resale prices at those resorts languish far behind prices at WDW DVCs.

Aulani is proof that the public doesn't have an appetite for a Disney timeshare away from a theme park. Opened six years ago, it still hasn't sold out, selling slower than the expansive, beautiful Animal Kingdom Villas, which the public was slow to embrace because of its incorrectly perceived "bad" location on the southwest corner of WDW property. (I still can't figure out why AKV resale prices are about the same as the massive, rather ho-hum SSR. Seriously, AKV is WDW's most beautiful resort.)

Remember, building/converting at WDW is cheap. Disney already owns all the land and infrastructure. Building anywhere else is significantly more expensive for Disney.

This is all about volume and margin. Disney is never going to find a timeshare location that will sell as quickly and with as high of a margin as at WDW.

I was under the impression that the resale prices at the beach resorts were due to the relatively high maintenance fees and risk of hurricane damage jacking them up even further and extremely quickly.

But yeah, AKL and AKV are the best value at WDW, whether you're a cash guest or a prospective DVC member.

The bus ride from MK to AKV is a nightmare in a way that rides from other resorts aren't.

I VEHEMENTLY disagree. From AKL to MK is literally one turn. East on Osceola Parkway, turn left onto World Drive. That's it. Other resorts that are physically much closer take just as long because you have to wind through back roads and multiple bus stops within the resort itself.

True story: It's faster to get to Epcot, Hollywood Studios, and Animal Kingdom from Animal Kingdom Lodge than it is from the Contemporary. Unless you spend an inordinate amount of time at the Magic Kingdom, the transportation "benefit" of the MK resorts is at least offset by poor transportation to any other park.

Maleficent was a failure in every department that exists. A truly horrific film that RUINED Disney's most iconic villain. I'm still pressed about this atrocious movie three years later. I have never been so aggravated leaving a film. Ugh. Will never understand why people act like Maleficent was lovely, because it wasn't.

How did it ruin anything? It's not canon, is it?

 

[truecoat]

I liked the added backstory. Why else would Belle and Maurice, two very forward thinking people of high intellect and learning, end up in a small minded town full of people with very conformist attitudes and who's high standard is Gaston?

Sounds like you are describing the US right now.

 

[Rodan75]

I VEHEMENTLY disagree. From AKL to MK is literally one turn. East on Osceola Parkway, turn left onto World Drive. That's it. Other resorts that are physically much closer take just as long because you have to wind through back roads and multiple bus stops within the resort itself.

True story: It's faster to get to Epcot, Hollywood Studios, and Animal Kingdom from Animal Kingdom Lodge than it is from the Contemporary. Unless you spend an inordinate amount of time at the Magic Kingdom, the transportation "benefit" of the MK resorts is at least offset by poor transportation to any other park.

Good points...and fair. But every single ride I've taken to AKV is miserable. Part of the reason is that they always seem to overstuff the busses going to any of the 'DAK Resort Area' Resorts to a level I don't ever see when we stay at VWL (I guess BRV now), the other reason is that the drivers always seem to drive more recklessly headed out that way than they do on the side streets to the other parks.

I'm assuming I'm not the only one who feels that way if the resale values on those properties are still so low. Because the room interiors are wonderful, the pool areas are very nice and the restaurants are great and eventually the only reason remaining is transportation.

 

[michmousefan]

I get how it added but i think a lot more people relate to the smart kid who gets stuck in the small town they can never get out of where the high school jock is king than moving to out of the city.

While I didn't mind the added backstory, it seems like it could have been addressed in a more efficient fashion. The movie seemed to drag on at times; the bloat from 84 minutes of the original to the 129 minutes of the new version was apparent.

 

[truecoat]

Behold the TOT GOTG:MB in all it's glory. Not coming to a park near you...or maybe it will.

 

[The_Jobu]

Behold the TOT GOTG:MB in all it's glory. Not coming to a park near you...or maybe it will.

View attachment 194301

 

[disneyflush]

Why is this surprising Spirit is a person who has visited the parks since he was a kid and has a long career in media so having a history of park visits going back 30 years or so like many of us is not terribly surprising and Disney does play an outsized role in US media.

Its surprising, to me, because...choose a word.....life...or weather....or cobbler. The reasoning behind my surprise is mostly irrelevant but here it is:

I'm 39. My first visit at a kid was in 1981. I was 4 I think. My family drove down from Indiana every summer after that until 1990 (a beautiful Polynesian week-long stay with a gold key card for each of us). We went down less frequently after that but every 3 or 4 years we would go down for at least a day while hanging out at the beach that week. I began taking my own family in 2006. We go every other year or so. I earned a Master's degree to help facilitate the purchase of these trips and souviners on the trips. I've seen the park grow, I've seen it expand, add MGM (always MGM to me), add EPCOT, add AK, the waterparks, too many resorts...on and on. I assume (could be way off) that you and I are similar in age for a number of reasons. Younger people (younger than 35ish) are able to be disappointed by things at the parks now but they rarely have the anger I see on the boards from the 80s visitors. MK was WDW to these people. EPCOT was literally the learning place with science and countries but MK was pure fun. It wasn't crowded like today. There were lines but they were fair lines. There were new things each visit but you discovered them when you went. The way I visit the parks now is obviously much different than back then but my expectations are always going to be frozen to the quality and fun of 1990 WDW. I think I see similar expectations from a lot of people that also take unpopular decisions as something close to an affront on our childhood memories.

I say these things to qualify my surprise. I have a 'history of park visits going back 30 years or so' as you stated. I have read lots of books on the parks, the company, and Walt the man. I do have a fairly sharp understanding of the current state of Disney in the global media. I have a similar scope and viewpoint as a lot of other people on the boards. I'm still surprised Spirit is in his 40s. My surprise has very little to do with my ability to reference the things I saw in the 80's.

I try to keep my very infrequent posts inoffensive to the masses. I'm answering your question because I usually enjoy your posts and opinions. If you meant your question to be a hypothetical slight toward my surprise then I misinterpreted what you were asking for in your response.

 

[Mike S]

Saw the new tentpole last night. Was anyone else underwhelmed by Beauty and the Beast, as I was? Definitely did not meet expectations.

I'm seeing it tonight.

Behold the TOT GOTG:MB in all it's glory. Not coming to a park near you...or maybe it will.

View attachment 194301

 

[Princess Leia]

The couple things I didn't like was the teleporting book but that ended up leading to a really good scene. The other thing was the shorter timeline. The beauty (pun intended) of the original film was the intent that it was over months or even years and there was a real slow burn for Belle and the Beast to go from hating each other to becoming friends to falling in love. Here, it's the span of a few days and makes the romance far less sweet and genuine than it was in the original.

Was it over the span of a few days? We have no idea how long

Spoiler: new scenes

Maurice was being sheltered by the Enchantress. Also, Belle referred to the castle as 'home', so I'm assuming she was there for more than a few days.

I agree with you about the book. I originally thought "this is dumb" but then I ended up teary-eyed.

I wrote the rest of my feelings about the movie in the Batb movie thread (don't want to clog this one). Probably seeing it with my mom over the weekend, so maybe I'll feel better about it the second time. Right now I'm giving it 3/5 Mickey Mouses, but five of these guys (the reason Disney remade it):

 

[Princess Leia]

Behold the TOT GOTG:MB in all it's glory. Not coming to a park near you...or maybe it will.

View attachment 194301

oh for crying out loud

 

[ryguy]

A few years back spirit mentioned how much he enjoyed the Disney cruise line, and I have to agree. Finally did a cruise last year and it really reminded of the atmosphere and off the charts customer service you used to get back at WDW in the 70's and 80's. It was pricey but I felt like it was worth the up charge compared to the other cruise lines. Felt the same way about the world back in the day, it was pricey but you could justify the price. Not so at today's WDW. You get hammered at every turn. Watered down/stale products at absurd prices. Food quality not so great at stupid prices. Merchandise expensive and fairly generic. Shops you see at any mall in America, etc...

I am encouraged by all the new construction, but its been a long time coming. Both the Studios and AK were built as half parks, and should have had more editions much earlier.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Behold the TOT GOTG:MB in all it's glory. Not coming to a park near you...or maybe it will.

View attachment 194301

So, yeah..it's always going to look like TOT to me. The extraneous stuff they're putting on the outside of it so far is not making it look like what they say it's supposed to be under this new theme, IMO.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So, yeah..it's always going to look like TOT to me. The extraneous stuff they're putting on the outside of it so far is not making it look like what they say it's supposed to be under this new theme, IMO.

K well it's not done, so...

I'm not saying you're going to love the final product or that you have to love the idea in the first place. But judging it as it exists TODAY seems like you're jumping the gun a bit.

 

[Angel Ariel]

K well it's not done, so...

I'm not saying you're going to love the final product or that you have to love the idea in the first place. But judging it as it exists TODAY seems like you're jumping the gun a bit.

Which is why I said " The extraneous stuff they're putting on the outside of it so far is not making it look like what they say it's supposed to be under this new theme, IMO." As far as I've seen from the concept art, they're not changing the color underneath all of the pipes and such. And that is what's making it continue to look like TOT to me right now. I would think that if the underneath color were changing, that would have happened prior to them putting the pipes and such up.

It's also just an opinion. I'm not married to it, and am happy to change it as the construction process goes along.

 

[HMF]

Behold the TOT GOTG:MB in all it's glory. Not coming to a park near you...or maybe it will.

View attachment 194301

I have seen horse manure that looked better.

 

[truecoat]

K well it's not done, so...

I'm not saying you're going to love the final product or that you have to love the idea in the first place. But judging it as it exists TODAY seems like you're jumping the gun a bit.

The parts exposed are. The scaffolding was removed overnight.